I see, that makes sense. Thanks for sharing your firsthand experience.
I’m not sure of the motivation in cases of complete father absence but in splits where both parents will be involved this leaves the child with the same last name as one of the parents with no further rigamarole.
If they take mom’s maiden name and mom remarries they end up with different last names anyway (unless they also want to change the kid’s name). Agree it’s not as big of a deal now as before.
Well, again, just because two people aren’t married doesn’t mean the father isn’t going to contribute. Not allowing him any say in naming the child, however, seems like it would encourage him to feel unwanted and unwelcome.
And I say this as a very non-traditional woman. I kept my name when I married, and my son has my last name as a second middle name. It was very important that I kept it there somewhere.
As far as different names go, I think people are a LOT more likely to assume a father with a different name isn’t the “real” dad than they are to assume a mom with the different last name isn’t a “real” mom. It’s much more common for mothers and children to have different last names. And because there is still a stigma against absentee fathers, I’d rather my son have to explain that yes, I am his real mom (if it ever comes up) than to explain that yes, that’s his real dad.
I don’t actually know how much the father is going to contribute. I hope it’s something, but based on what my wife hears from her sister expectations are not high.
At any rate, if you’ve fathered a child, giving the child your last name seems like an extraordinarily generous and enduring gesture to get you to do what you ought to do anyway. It shouldn’t be the mom’s job (or the child’s burden) to make the father feel welcome and wanted.
But you and others have raised really good reasons for why she’s done this, and I respect the decisions you all have made. I’m working on respecting my niece’s.
Could she be under the impression that babies are required to be given their father’s last name? Young people with limited life experience can be startlingly clueless about how it all works – I regularly meet college students who have no idea that the titles “Mrs.” and “Miss” have anything to do with marital status, or that women are not legally required to change their names to their husband’s. They’re not dumb, just from a very conservative part of the country with few models of how things work outside of their own communities.
Your thread title intrigued me because a few weeks ago Justin Townes Earle, with his father’s last name (and who died a few weeks ago RIP JTE) released two records back to back. Single Mothers was followed up by Absent Fathers.
I typed bad. The records are a few years old, the death was a few weeks ago.
Wow … I’m familiar with Steve but not with his son. How awful. I’m going to check out those albums.
I would guess the main reason is because due to common custody arrangements, the step-father/step-child setup is far more common than the step-mother/step-child one.
Also, mom may have kept her own name.
Not quite the same thing, but when wife & I married this was us. Attitudinally we were both open to any arrangement or rearrangement of our last names.
But hers was an Italian mouthful with a couple of unexpected letters thrown in and mine wasn’t “Smith”, but it wasn’t much more exotic than “Smith”. She chose to take mine and here we are decades later.
An anecdote the other way (actual names changed) – I know a male rabbi who took his wife’s Latino-sounding last name. He said, “There’s a million Rabbi David Cohens, but there’s only one Rabbi David Sanchez.”
Back in college I knew a guy who loved to use fake names for laffs. His schtick was always that the names’ implied ethnicities were wildly different.
Julio Ulianov was one of his favorites.
So, surnames are hereditary after all. You inherit them from your kids.
I had a neighbor, a single female (never-married I think) with three children all by different fathers. She and the three children all had different last names. One child in high school, one in elementary school, one in pre-school. That must have been a big source of confusion. Of the three children, only one father was paying any kind of support and in any way part of the child’s life.
Kinda like baseball Hall of Famer Vladimir Guerrero?
Just because the Dad is a bit of a no show currently, doesn’t mean he can’t find his way one day. Maybe she sees something in him that others don’t. Who knows? Maybe when he has his ‘Aha!’ moment, and decides he wants to be more, a child with his name might well be what gives him a reason to go on, strive for better, stick to it.
Maybe she’s knows something you don’t, like whatever issues he’s struggling with, and wants to demonstrate her faith in him.
A whole lot of reasons seem possible to me.
She certainly knows a lot that I don’t. Like I said upstream, I’m trying to respect her decision.
But your idea here sounds a little like buying a nice sports car for a wayward kid on the off chance he shapes up, finishes school and gets a good job.
I wonder … if the tables were somehow turned, with the mom abandoning the baby, would anyone expect the father to give the baby the mom’s last name in hopes that she’d do the right thing and come back?
I didn’t mean to imply, nor did I say, she was doing it to inspire him to shape up. Hoping that it might coming to pass maybe, isn’t transactional.
Honestly I was thinking more ‘one day he might need something to live for’, maybe this could be it. He’s got demons of some kind, maybe she knows how deep they run.
Or maybe she didn’t want other kids claiming the kid ‘didn’t even have a Dad!’, if the kid has his name, he clearly has a Dad.
Mostly, I was saying it could be any number of valid reasons, we aren’t privy to.
It seems to me that many people view giving a child the father’s last name to be simply the default option. In other words, you need a solid reason NOT to do it, something more than him being a deadbeat. Others view it as something the father has to earn.